Posted by:
waxnwayne
(
)
Date: September 17, 2016 01:29PM
caaron Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- (deleted to avoid repeating it)
_________________
caaron, quoting scripture and then trying to reverse-engineer "logic" into the quoted material is not "thinking," in reference to calling a post "confused." It is regurgitating the bilious apologetics into which a cult has indoctinated you.
If you are sure that you're NOT a member of a cult, you should have no problem with this:
https://culteducation.com/warningsigns.htmlSearch around, there are a many sources for the material - it is fairly basic reading. My statements are not merely "anti" opinion, but the result of freedom -of speech, of education, of dissent, the result of allowing oneself to learn.
It is said that "scholars" can quote more than one book in their fields of study. Is this true of you? Can you balance your quoted materials within the context of the vast fields of religion and history? Or, are you sure that in all of human history, only mormons have "the one true book?" If so, how can anyone defend that stance without knowledge of the others? What kind of a god would make it so? For thousands of years, billions of people, no Joe Smith.
There are many brilliant posters on this board; I'm not one of them, but I'm bright enough to recognize them. A word about the poster, Kolobian. His logic is ice-cold. It grants no pity, takes no prisoners. Look up his posts. You'll find that he is not being hard on you, in particular. You simply fail at logic, religion and history. He has kicked my ass a time or two, as have others, and I learn. It can be painful, but worth it.
This is saying nothing ill of Kolobian or the others. It is the nature of logic to be as purely analytical as possible, as it is the basis of meaningful argument. Arguing from fallacy will earn you a well-deserved kick in the ass. Arguing from emotion, tradition or authority is fallacy. (Look it up. Many .edu sites offer free online materials. Include ".edu" in your search to hit the sites.)
I'm simply suggesting that if you want to go toe-to-toe in an argument, you'll need to understand what one is, and what it is not.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/learn-the-elements-and-standards/861btw, calling a post "confusing" on a board meant for healing FROM a cult, then answering the poster's "confusion" with cult materials (apologetics) is considered rude behavior on this board. The OP posted a legitimate idea that has been argued for centuries, and in many ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudenesshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Godhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evilIf you want to "try to do the impossible," then please understand that it requires effort on your part; you must understand more than one new-ish book (or perspective). I have a feeling that if you continue to answer posts by quoting scripture and mormon apologetics, even if they're all that you know, you will be banned for trolling.
Try an answer excluding those things, or ask about your perspective in your own post, and be prepared for authentic answers. This is not a place to witness to others, no matter how you dress it up. Can you do the impossible, or, are all things possible?
On a personal level, I would like to know your age range (decade is enough), and if you've read the essays on the LDS website?
I do not speak for "the board;" I speak only for myself. This response was originally to a different thread, but I did not want to further detract from that poster's idea by responding to you there.
Be well.